In one of the most notorious passages in The
Prince, Machiavelli makes the empirical claim
that political leaders who have been deceitful have been more
successful than those who have been sincere, citing Pope Alexander VI
as an example.1

Machiavelli reminds us that Achilles was taught by Chiron the centaur, so he knew
how to be half man and half beast. Machiavelli concludes that it is
necessary for princes to learn how to act both according to the laws
of men and as a beast would, and advises them to make use of the
nature of the fox and the lion. Relying only on the force of a lion
is not enough. A prince must be fraudulent when it is necessary. In
practical terms, this means that a prince must take pains to appear
honest, merciful and religious, but should not hesitate to be
deceitful whenever it suits him.2

The traitor class in Britain have learned Machiavelli's lesson well. We
now know that British politicians secretly initiated a radical social
engineering project in our country more than a decade ago, and that
this project had social as well as economic objectives. This was
denied for years, until a former speech writer for the state called
Andrew Neather let the cat out of the bag in 2009 and acknowledged
that the political elite wanted to turn Britain into a multicultural
country.3

The so-called United Kingdom has been changed significantly because of that radical
political policy. A census carried out in 2011 showed that the number
of immigrants in England and Wales had increased by three million in
the previous ten years.4 The political elite in Britain may have decided to implement their
radical social engineering project in secret, but once it was under
way, it was inevitable that its effects would become known to the
general public. In order to forestall any objections to the idea of a
multicultural utopia, the state's ideological enforcers, who are
welded into the very structure of British society, have promoted the
idea that there is no such thing as right and wrong because all
morality is subjective and personal. Moral beliefs are said to be
nothing more than thoughts about morality that occur within someone's
consciousness. These thoughts are relative to everything else that
individual thinks and feels.5 If that was
correct, then we would all be living in what political philosophers
call the state of nature, where life is a war of every man against
every other, and no quarter can be given or expected. In that
environment, it would be 'good' for someone to murder a relativist,
rape their wife, kill their dog and sell their children into slavery.
So the first problem advocates of this theory face is that if
everyone took them at their word, that would have inevitable and
fatal consequences - for them.

According to the unproven theory of relativism, the source of an individual's
beliefs about morality are not objective moral values, but whatever
beliefs have been passed on to that individual by other members of
their culture. And if an individual's beliefs about morality can only
be what other people from their culture say they are and nothing
else, then that is what they would inevitably be. In any given
society, there would be no non-conformists.6

In Nazi Germany, the National Socialists ruthlessly implemented a policy of
Gleichschaltung, which meant bringing everyone under their
control into line with Adolf Hitler's twisted beliefs. But even under
those circumstances, there were non-conformists – people whose
moral beliefs were entirely different from those demanded by the
state.

Hans Scholl had served on the Eastern Front, and the reality he experienced there
refuted what his native culture claimed was true. His younger sister
Sophie was a practising Christian whose religious beliefs were
entirely contrary to the values preached by the National Socialists.
Sophie and Hans Scholl formed a peaceful protest group called the
White Rose and released a series of pamphlets criticizing the
National Socialist regime. Dissenting views were not tolerated by the
National Socialists, and the non-conformist siblings were arrested
and executed in February 1943.

The White Rose stands today for values that are superior to relativism, a theory
with no moral foundation whatsoever, which cannot provide the means
to either condemn the Nazis or to praise Sophie Scholl.

Anyone who has visited the Holocaust Exhibition at the Imperial War Museum
in London understands that the moral term 'evil' is meaningful, and
that it can be correctly applied to what the National Socialists did
at Auschwitz.7 But if a devout relativist wants to condemn the Nazis and, in accordance
with the principles of his own belief system, insists that his
condemnation is based on nothing more than what he was taught to
believe in by other members of his culture, then the problem he faces
is that an SS guard stationed at Auschwitz would have had an entirely
different system of beliefs about morality, based on what he was
taught to believe by other members of his culture. And if the SS
guard praised what the relativist now condemns, then the relativist
cannot say that one view is better than the other.

If a relativist cannot condemn the Nazis in a meaningful way but instead, places
himself on an equal moral footing with the beasts who attended the
Wannsee Conference in 1942 and the SS guards who operated the death
camps, then there is something badly wrong with his thinking.

Not only does the theory of relativism fail to provide the means to
condemn what every morally sane person regards as evil, it is
internally incoherent. Relativism claims that different people
believe in different things about morality, and they are all equally
true. Incredibly, the reason that different moral claims are supposed
to be true is that they are believed to be true. But the proposition:
'The belief that an assertion is true is the same thing as the
assertion being true' is not sensible.

If someone was to assert that everything a relativist believes is false, the relativist
would have to say that the other person's assertion is true,
therefore the proposition: 'The belief that an assertion is true is
the same thing as the assertion being true' is false. So relativism
entails its own refutation.

What is more, if believing that an assertion is true is not the same thing as that
assertion being true, then the relativist has no reason to even use
the word 'true' in this context, because all he is saying is that
different people believe different things. This leads us back to the
state of nature where might is right, nothing is unjust, and life for
the weak (and that includes the relativist) will be nasty, brutal and
short.

The failings of the theory of relativism are clear for anyone to see. Nevertheless,
this ridiculous doctrine has been used to camouflage the actions of
the political elite, and to hide the truth about what they have done
from the people they were elected to represent.

In our current situation, we would do well to remember the message of the White
Rose:

Nothing is so unworthy of a civilized nation as allowing itself to be
governed without opposition by an irresponsible clique that has
yielded to base instinct. It is certain that today every honest
Briton is ashamed of his government. Who among us has any conception
of the dimensions of shame that will befall us and our children when
one day the veil has fallen from our eyes and the crimes of the
traitor class finally reach the light of day?

If the British people are already so corrupted and spiritually crushed
that they do not raise a hand, trusting that the traitor class will
eventually come to their senses; if they surrender every human being's highest
principle, that which raises him above all other God's creatures, his
free will; if they abandon the will to take decisive action and turn
the wheel of history and thus subject it to their own rational
decisions; if they are so devoid of all individuality, if they have
already gone so far along the road towards turning into a spiritless
and cowardly mass, then yes, they deserve their own downfall. Do not
forget that every people deserves the regime it is willing to endure.8

Did they promise that one? They make so many empty promises about immigration but the truth is that it got way out of their control & there's nothing they can do about it. They can't even stop Europe from telling British citizens what kind of hoovers they're allowed to use to clean their own house. What chance have they got of regaining control over our own borders? And even if they did - it's too late now. Talk about closing the stable door after the horse has bolted!

Donate To Patriot's Corner

Search This Blog

Loading...

What We Believe

This site is dedicated to threats faced by America and the free world. Freedom and liberty are being attacked from all sides. and, a battle has once again surfaced against a very old enemy, Islam, Islamofascism, tyranny, and the regressive progressive statist. Our work is dedicated to patriots who will stand up for freedom and liberty based on the Constitution of the United States. We will defend to the death, your right to your opinion. The Founding Fathers had it mostly right!

Pacific Time & Breeze Company

Antique and Vintage Fans For Sale

The Constitutionist

A path back to the Constitution

IDL

Illegal Immigration, crime and facts

Patriot's Corner on Facebook

We will never forget

Eternal flame 9-11-2001

Support our troops!

Religion of Peace

III Arms

Made by Patriots for Patriots

Whiskey In a Jar

LadyRaven's blog

YouTube SmackDown

Help report jihadi violence

The Fjordman Files

The Hizb ut-Tahrir Watch

Keeping A Watchful Eye On Hizb ut-Tahrir

The Institute For Jihadi Research

Exposing The Truth About Islamic Jihad

Crescent Of BetrayalAlec Rawls Error Theory

Mt. Suribachi

Hands Off

Followers

The Truth

Dr. Bill Smith

Ron Russell

Comments by contributors or sources do not necessarily reflect the position of Patriot's Corner, other Contributors or the Editors.

Fair Use: This site/blog may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as provided for in section Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Per said section, the material on this site/blog is distributed without profit to readers to view for the expressed purpose of viewing the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. Any person/entity seeking to use copyrighted material on this site/blog for purposes that go beyond "fair use," must obtain permission from the copyright owner.